Richard Smith wrote: > 1) That's a *lot* of macros. We might be able to get away with the cost > of > the number of macros that SG10 is currently proposing, but I would be > *seriously* concerned about a measurable performance cost (on compiling an > empty file, which is not actually an irrelevant concern) of predefining > hundreds of __has_attribute macros. > > 2) Either of those identifiers could contain underscores, and there is no > other separator character that works. > > [3) It's ugly.]
Good points. I agree that those are more important than consistency, especially as it can be more consistent in the future if __has_builtin() or anything else is added in the future. Then only the language/library feature tests would be 'inconsistent' by the absence of __has_feature(). Thanks, Steve. _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
